About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
the pentagon's budget and still protect national security. former defense undersecretary michelle flournoy, if identify got that right -- michelle flournoy, i beg your pardon, she penned an op-ed in the wall street journal this week. joining us is aforementioned michele flournoy. michelle, or undersecretary, which ever you prefer -- >> michelle, please. >> i thought your piece was terrific. sequester or not, defense department is going to lose 10% of its budget and you think there are good ways to do it. walk us through some of the key points. >> i do think the defense budget will come under pressure, even if we do get a deal. there are ways to reduce costs go after the defense enterprise rather than balance the budget on the back of the force. first cutting unnecessary overhead. the pentagon and d.o.d. has grown by more than 100,000 civilians in the last decade. we can pare those back now that we're coming out of a period of war. >> i thought your civilian argument was great. we've been through these wars and you're saying you can take it right back down without losing any national securi
as the internet. in less than a decade, the pentagon's warning that it might be possible for a computer hacker to disable critical infrastructure in a major city and disrupt essential services has actually happened. other online attacks have seen millions of dollars stolen from banks and defense systems infiltrated. it's why, as we first reported in november of 2009, some people are already saying that the next big war is less likely to begin with a bang than a blackout. >> can you imagine your life without electric power? >> until february 2009, retired admiral mike mcconnell was the nation's top spy. as chief of national intelligence, he oversaw the central intelligence agency, the defense intelligence agency and the national security agency. few people know as much about cyber warfare, and our dependency on the power grid, and the computer networks that deliver our oil and gas, pump and purify our water, keep track of our money, and operate our transportation systems. >> if i were an attacker and i wanted to do strategic damage to the united states, i would either take the cold of winter or
the pentagon. and really ambiguity on israel, too. is that possible that's why he was picked? >> well, actually, i think even more revealing when he said it doesn't matter what i think, i'm not in a policy role. in other words, obama has chosen a stooge who has no independent thoughts, who is not going to be in the way, who is simply going to be there as a plug so that he can continue to slash the pentagon budget. this was a five-car pile-up, larry. this was a fiasco, a debacle, whatever you want to call it. what happened in the hearing today is this shifted from an issue of ideology to an issue of competence. would we be willing to trust this man if he went in to go talk to the russians, if he went in to the middle east. i don't think anyone in good conscience looking at him can say he's prepared, he's sober, he has a grasp of these issues. it was an embarrassing performance. the worst in my lifetime, larry, and i'm not alone. a lot of mainstream reporters saying this was really bad. >> aw shucks, jennifer, i can think of many in your lifetime. >> oh, not as bad as this. >> i want to ask you o
. republicans want to move away from these pentagon cuts and put pressure on the president to come up with new cuts. karl rove recommended that today in the "wall street journal." >> pentagon is 20% of our federal budget. if you're going to make cuts in spending that's not entitlements you have to -- >> ding, ding, ding, that's not entitlements. can we make entitlement cuts? >> sequestration doesn't deal with it. >> the president will never do entitlement cuts. >> here's the reality. we saw the gdp growth numbers decline in the last quarter of 2012 because of the contraction in federal government spending. >> that's primarily in the military. >> the private-sector economy has grown 5%. they weathered these cuts. >> ed rogers i want to go back to one fundamental point regarding my sermon on the mound. i really believe that any time you can cut spending and limit government that is good for the economy. that is why fundamentally apart from the numbers and getting in the weed for all these debates i think that this is a pro growth move and that's the reason why i want the republicans to hang toug
care benefit system in the pentagon needs to be overhauled and that these are where major savings are and that's where we should aim for, that the pentagon cannot be immune from this exercise. >> i wouldn't disagree at all. i think you can debate what kind of military defense strategy you wish, what kind of forces you plan on having, their technology, their training levels, all that should be on the table. but you've got to do it in a rational way. you've got to act like it's a business. the whole notion of cutting billions of dollars out of the defense budget, i just read one of the pundits announcing you can cut the defense budget by 2/3 and it wouldn't affect national security. and that all of this is political theater. it's anything but political theater. you know, dr. ash carter, the deputy's a very rational, bright fellow. very experienced. the chiefs of the services just testified under oath. they said this is going to be a big problem. and i think it is. >> and i agree with the general. because again, as i said, i'm not saying not to do cuts but let's do it smart. let's no
ahead. >> here's the big challenges for apple. the pentagon chael challenge for a s&l that it's a really great wonderful product that's changed the world but ipad, it growth is not enough to make up for the slowing saturation of the smartphone market that -- that is happening because the iphone is being adopted and the rich people already have these things. you know, the ipad is a great product, but it's been so great, it hasn't been able to sort of do what the iphone has done. the iphone is a once in a lifetime product that was wonderful for apple's profit margins and we're just not going to see the likes of it again any time soon. >> not to pile on, colleen. you have to admit buzz is not there for apple and when you look at the stock price, it's down sharply from those highs last september when ironically they had just introduced the new iphone, so, you know -- it's a nice ipad, but where's the buzz for apple these days, colleen? >> listen, i agree, apple need to do a lot more to get this stock back, but the buzz isn't there because this is an enterprise story. this is a business story
he knows and doesn't know about the pentagon because he didn't know much. why are the democrats going to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so
if, larry, you get rid of all the waste and abuse that they say is in the pentagon, you're still not going to make a dent in the spending that we need to to bring our budgets back under control. the fact of the matter is president obama not only suggested but he insisted that this sequester become law. you now have democrats running away -- >> it was his idea. and we just clarified that. it was his idea in the first place. why is he trying to worm out of his idea? >> not only the president but the entire democratic party has this righteous indignation over sequester when in fact they were the ones pushing it in the first place. the house has twice passed bills that would bring reasonable spending cuts into law. the senate thus far, we have seen a complete vacuum of leadership. it's time, frankly, for everyone to come to the table and have a reasonable discussion about what meaningful spending cuts would actually take to pass into law. >> catherine, i just want to get your quick take as the libertarian in the group. we've got a little something for everybody here tonight. before i
billion in budget cuts set to begin in just eight days. on the same day, the pentagon outlined plan toes furlough some 800,000 civilian workers to save money. these interviews are part of the white house strategy to blame potential job losses on the gop. >> instead of us cutting education, instead of us cutting the mental health programs, instead of us affecting military readiness and a whole range of other things that are important to our security and prosperity, we should be focused on programs that we know don't work, waste in government, and some of these tax loopholes that we could close that frankly benefit the well off and well connected. >> now, congress isn't in session this week. it isn't expected to reach a deal by the march 1st deadline to prevent the sequester. so, ideal, the physical mini cliff continues. >>> david einhorn is taking his case against apple directly to the company's shareholders. he's seeking an injunction to get rid of a system to issue pressed stock. einhorn will hold a conference call with investors today, an interesting move and one that's seeing apple sh
to see you. i wanted to put this up. this is what's on the cover of "usa today." pentagon warns of huge cuts. when you think about what's going on in washington, right now, and you think about the sequester that may or may not happen, and you think about your history in washington, do you think that we will have the sequester? >> andrew, i don't know. i think it's a very complicated situation. i think we had a great opportunity and i actually thought there was some reasonable chance it might happen, which was to have a grand bargain that could have addressed what is really unsustainable and deeply dangerous long-term fiscal situation and i think if we had done that, not only would be useful for the long run but i think could have generated confidence in the shorter run and promote jobs now. now instead of that we have a happen has 5rd process. a sequester we're facing. it's a terrible piece of legislation. it arbitrarily cuts defense and nondefense without thoughtfully doing so. instead of being phased in so we'd have more room for recovery, it hits abruptly. and it's far, far from clea
taking the civilian workers when our country is still at war at the pentagon and putting them on four days a week work is still waste. let those who think they've identified waste and no doubt there are efficiencies that can be found put their proposals forward and let those proposals be weighed in the context of a balanced approach. the question isn't whether we should leave any category immune. the question is whether we should have a balanced approach. and to assume, before anyone has laid out any kind of vision of how that $85 billion a year could be cut, that it must be possible and that everything else has to be ruled out seems to me to be a extraordinarily irresponsible approach. of course there are instances of waste in the federal government. there are also instances of huge unmet needs of diseases where we could find cures that save tens of thousands of people's lives in the next several years. but we're cutting the budget instead and denying ourselves the chances to find those cures. of infrastructure investments where we're risking more bridges collapsing and all we're doi
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)